« I hate the potholes of spring | Main | Box bike means you take your locker with you »

03/19/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

bubak

Now that I am a father, I notice so much more how exclusive our city is.

For example, I can cross six lanes of traffic in time before the pedestrian light turns red, but a small child cannot walk fast enough, and needs to be picked up and carried.

Even when the child gets old enough to obey traffic lights, he/she still cannot cross safely because so many turning cars fail to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

And while I can bike in an on-road bike lane a couple of feet from cars flying by at 80 km/h (and hope not to get killed like Tiberiu David), my son will have to be almost in university before I allow him to bike there.

Rob Stephens

Ownership does not define citizenship— licences do! I do not think it is a good idea to allow bicycles on roads for one reason and one reason only, people on bikes lose every time in a collision. Too many times I see bikers who do not respect the rules or automatically assume because they have the right of way do what ever they want. Right of way doesn't bring you back from the dead.They need to license all bike owners so that they have no excuse for disobeying the rules. Then they need to widen all sidewalks and have half for bikes and half for pedestrians. Cars, bikes, rollerblades, skateboards and pedestrians do not belong on the same roadway that is just insanely stupid.

steve milley

pay a fee,then what you say might matter.

yvonne

Roadways were built for motorized vehicles such as cars for those that need to drive to work every day, for buses that get others to work and for transport trucks that deliver the necessities that we shop for. They were not built for pedestrians. Especially for pedestrians that don't even look to cross a road. In Waterloo Region we have miles and miles of trails for walking, biking and enjoying, why not stay out of harm's way and use them. Vehicles are not allowed on sidewalks in this country, so unless crossing a street quickly and safely, stay on the sidewalk or trail.

Rob

@Steve. I pay property, income, HST and more other forms of taxation than I care to name. Exactly how much tax do I have to pay, pray tell, to ride my bicycle on PUBLIC thoroughfares that I help pay for?

@Rob S. I agree that there are many cyclists who flout the law. I am not one of them. I doubt very much that any attempt to licence cyclists would be a) enforceable or b) greatly increase the bureaucratic red tape that would have to be paid for out of general taxation. Further, the kind of behaviour I have seen from motorists (I drive too) leads me to doubt very much that a couple of driving tests at 16 and then annual tests after the age of 80 is nearly sufficient.

Rob

@Yvonne. Roads were built for the PUBLIC to use for transportation purposes. I ride my bike to get to work and to get essentials like groceries and my bicycle is legally defined as a VEHICLE under the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. Most of the trails we have here don’t actually go anywhere and as for the sidewalks don’t get me started. I doubt you’ll have the same attitude towards cyclists on the sidewalks when you or someone you care about gets run down by a cyclist (an acquaintance of my family was killed by a bike on the sidewalk several years ago). Besides, they aren’t safe for bikes exceeding speeds of 30 km/h with driveways, cross streets etc.

Ryan

Licensing cyclists has ended up costing cities far more money then what it brings in, in all cities that have tried it.
So by all means, if you support an even more inactive and fat society and paying more taxes to help pay for those that need to take care of the licensing aspect, then license us.

Likewise, I do believe motorists are licensed in this country, yet on a daily basis I see motorists blowing through red lights, stop signs, speeding, failing to yield for pedestrians at crosswalks, failing to signal and so on...And licenses are suppose to stop cyclists from breaking the law when they do nothing for motorists?

Have the people in this country really become that daft?

Jason

Just because city planners spent much of the last 50 years building roads with only motor-vehicles in mind does not mean that roads were built for, or funded by motorists.

Roads are public infrastructure on public land purchased and built for public use. They are on land purchased, for the most part prior to the automobile, funded primarily by property tax, and maintained to provide the necessary inter-connectivity and mobility necessary for a functioning and equitable society. Mode of transport does not equate to importance, as many people walk or cycle to work, and many others use their cars for beer/timmies runs. When motorists are a threat to other members of the public, that is a failure of the motorist (legally), and the cities that fail to provide adequate infrastructure (ethically).

I do hope we can encourage better behaviour by cyclists, but that is just not going to be possible while cycling as seen as a renegade activity and motorists feel entitled to bully and threaten lives.

Lori

@Yvonne That is why many major cities outside of North America build physically separated spaces for bicycles and small mopeds to use - separate traffic by speed, but give everyone a share (pedestrians are safe from bikes, bikes are safe from cars)

The comments to this entry are closed.